YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

---

Wait, you don't know that Democratic slave owners used property rights as a justification for slavery? Seriously? You really need to do some research.

---

He probably also doesn't know that Lincoln was a flaming liberal of his time that abused more civil rights of Americans than the Patriot Act since he shut down newspapers he thought were treasonous, suspended habeas corpus, and raised an army against his own countrymen seeking the natural right of self-determination. (Yes, I understand slavery was wrong.)

---

Woof. Weird that you would accuse LINCOLN of raising an army against his own people.

Who fired the first shots? Who seceded?

---

Those who seceded were seeking self determination same as our Founders. The first order of a nation (the new Confederacy as well) is to protect its borders and what's within them by force if necessary. Would you not fight to decide for yourself? BTW...babies in the womb deserve the same right.

---

BaylorOkie said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Yes it terminates a potential life BUT is it any of the government's business.? It's a simple question. Is it any of business of the government what a woman's decision is about her body? Is it any of any business of the government what decisions you make about your, men?

---

My head is going to explode.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Waco47 says it's none of our business if this child born out of the womb lives or dies...it's a woman's personal decision.

---

How does prove your point? Is it any of your business? Do you want me or the government making decisions about your life?

---

Does a living born child not not have the same rights?

---

Is it any of your business what a woman does with her health decisions? Shall I make decisions for you?

---

I'm not asking about the woman, I'm asking about a living, breathing child. Does it have the same rights as you?

---

And I'm asking "Is it any of your business?"

---

So it is none of our business who gets what rights in the US? Is that really your argument? If that is the case then you have wasted a lot of time on this board arguing for things that are none of your business.

Equal rights? None of your business.
In fact, with that argument anyone could killed and the rest of the population could just say, "Well, it's none of anyone else's business."

That's a really poor argument, don't you think?

---

No it's not a poor argument. Your applications are false equivalencies. Again is it any of your business ? You're afraid to answer because you know it not any of your business .

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Waco47 says it's none of our business if this child born out of the womb lives or dies...it's a woman's personal decision.

---

How does prove your point? Is it any of your business? Do you want me or the government making decisions about your life?

---

Does a living born child not not have the same rights?

---

Is it any of your business what a woman does with her health decisions? Shall I make decisions for you?

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

1939 Germany

Otto and Helga von Roon sitting at the kitchen table

Helga: Otto, it's horrible what they are doing to those Jews. We should do something.

Otto: Those jews are none of our concern. We don't own them.

Helga: The stench Otto! The stench from the ovens! It is so horrible.

Otto: Relax Helga. Tomorrow the wind will be out of the south and you want even know the Jews ever existed.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

1939 Germany

Otto and Helga von Roon sitting at the kitchen table

Helga: Otto, it's horrible what they are doing to those Jews. We should do something.

Otto: Those jews are none of our concern. We don't own them.

Helga: The stench Otto! The stench from the ovens! It is so horrible.

Otto: Relax Helga. Tomorrow the wind will be out of the south and you want even know the Jews ever existed.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

90sBear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Only if the mother's health is in legitimate danger.

I'm anti-abortion, too. But you shouldn't have to lie to make your point.

---

"Doctor I think I'm going to kill myself if I have to go through with this pregnancy. I just don't think I can take it. I'm not ready for it and I just can't do it."

Is this mother's health in legitimate danger?

---

Straw man arguments are considered a logical fallacy for a reason.

---

That's no straw man argument. If the law states that the mother's emotional health could be a factor in determining if an abortion is appropriate past a certain developmental period, how are suicidal thoughts weighed into a decision? What if she has a plan and the means to carry it out? That could qualify her for at least a short stay in a hospital for psychiatric reasons and her safety.

I'm really not trying to make some troll comment here.

---

It's absolutely pedantic. The idea that a woman would carry 9 months only to abort last second because she was feeling suicidal... that's reductum ad absurdum. You could reduce ANY argument to the point of absurdity.

The law was produced because a doctor -in a situation where they had to choose who lives and who dies- could get sued either way. I think it's dumb, but if we REALLY give a **** about solving a problem, you HAVE to approach it in good faith. Otherwise, we just draw lines down the middle and get more and more extreme.

I think abortion is horrible. I know there are long-term effects that haunt women (and men) long after the decision to abort. I know that for a fact.

But we live in a world where there are rarely good clean answers. We don't really support women who have children after they're born. Healthcare is a joke. Schools are a joke. We send some real mixed signals about sex and reproduction and reading children.

So maybe our energy should be spent on creating a world where 1) fewer unwanted children are born 2) when a child is born, it's not nearly impossible to raise?

Or, ya know, we can keep being *******s who just love being aggrieved and just continue how things have been. Seems to have worked out so well so far.

---

You ever work in the mental health field? I have. Years with adults at an MHMR organization and years at a locked unit adolescent psychiatric hospital. My wife has been an ER doc for over 15 years, she's got stories as well. So I don't really know what you think you can tell me about what is or is not "pedantic" when it comes to people who are reporting suicidal thoughts, whether legitimate or not.

I'm not arguing that there is going to be rush on abortions the day before babies are due. I'm asking what qualifies as legitimate consideration of the emotional health of mothers. I am wondering what the approach would be if mother comes in with a late term pregnancy reporting being suicidal due to the pregnancy. Obviously the first step would be to refer her to a mental health facility, but I'm curious what would happen if she continued her position. I don't know how common this might be, I'm really just curious.

I really am coming at this from a mental health perspective as a curiousity about one aspect of the new law. I have not argued against the law, I have not said it is good or bad, I have merely asked the question of how suicidal thoughts would come into play when discussing "emotional health." Not sure why you seem all bent out of shape about the question.

---

I work -literally every day- with mental health issues and young adults. Though not in a clinical setting. Have you looked at the law to see how it defines imminent bodily harm before you started decrying this?

---

I have not - AGAIN, I'm asking a question.

Point out my "decrying" statement.

---

Sure. You were only asking a question. Sigh.

I still think it's a pedantic question. This law was put in place because of fear of a Roe v Wade overturn. It's far from "abortion on demand." And I think the response has been so overwrought that it just makes allies of the pro-life movement seem untrustworthy.

For what it's worth, I am against abortion in nearly every case. But I don't have a great feeling -or trust of the government- to force a woman to do something with her body she doesn't want to do.

To me, the most moral thing to do is work hard to make a world where people who don't want kids, won't get pregnant. And make it easier for women to raise children when they do.

---

Now you are just being an ass. I was asking a question.

I do not troll on this board, I ask questions and try to have intelligent conversations. I have agreed, disagreed with people on both ends of the political spectrum here.

So **** off with your condescending sigh.

---

You made a statement in question form. Spare me your faux outrage. The board is already full up on that.

You asked the "question." If you really wanted an answer, you could have read the text of the law. It's not super long and free on the internet.

---

I asked a hypothetical in question format. You have never done that?

How many times do people ask a question on this board that Google could answer? What if the answer is an opinion or subjective?

Point out my decrying post on this topic or faux outrage on any thread in this forum.

So spare me your belief that you know exactly what people's intentions are on an internet message board.

---

Did you REALLY think there was going to be a rash of women carrying a pregnancy 9 months and then trying to abort a baby the day before it was born? Did you REALLY think that?

REALLY?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

1939 Germany

Otto and Helga von Roon sitting at the kitchen table

Helga: Otto, it's horrible what they are doing to those Jews. We should do something.

Otto: Those jews are none of our concern. We don't own them.

Helga: The stench Otto! The stench from the ovens! It is so horrible.

Otto: Relax Helga. Tomorrow the wind will be out of the south and you want even know the Jews ever existed.

---

Godwin's law violation?

Also, false equivalency on aisle 9.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

1939 Germany

Otto and Helga von Roon sitting at the kitchen table

Helga: Otto, it's horrible what they are doing to those Jews. We should do something.

Otto: Those jews are none of our concern. We don't own them.

Helga: The stench Otto! The stench from the ovens! It is so horrible.

Otto: Relax Helga. Tomorrow the wind will be out of the south and you want even know the Jews ever existed.

---

Godwin's law violation?

Also, false equivalency on aisle 9.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

You leftists are lying evil *******s who have ZERO moral high ground.

God despises your beliefs and your faulty rationale for supporting murder. You WILL burn in Hell.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

1939 Germany

Otto and Helga von Roon sitting at the kitchen table

Helga: Otto, it's horrible what they are doing to those Jews. We should do something.

Otto: Those jews are none of our concern. We don't own them.

Helga: The stench Otto! The stench from the ovens! It is so horrible.

Otto: Relax Helga. Tomorrow the wind will be out of the south and you want even know the Jews ever existed.

---

Godwin's law violation?

Also, false equivalency on aisle 9.

---

what an out of touch idiot you are proving to be. State governments are allowing financial situations and emotional well-being to be called "health" so that a living human can be killed. You refuse to speak out against it but will gladly speak out against my comparisons of legal, mass killings!

Her is why it is not a false equivalency: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Waco47 says it's none of our business if this child born out of the womb lives or dies...it's a woman's personal decision.

---

How does prove your point? Is it any of your business? Do you want me or the government making decisions about your life?

---

Does a living born child not not have the same rights?

---

Is it any of your business what a woman does with her health decisions? Shall I make decisions for you?

---

I'm not asking about the woman, I'm asking about a living, breathing child. Does it have the same rights as you?

---

And I'm asking "Is it any of your business?"

---

So it is none of our business who gets what rights in the US? Is that really your argument? If that is the case then you have wasted a lot of time on this board arguing for things that are none of your business.

Equal rights? None of your business.
In fact, with that argument anyone could killed and the rest of the population could just say, "Well, it's none of anyone else's business."

That's a really poor argument, don't you think?

---

No it's not a poor argument. Your applications are false equivalencies. Again is it any of your business ? You're afraid to answer because you know it not any of your business .

---

They are not false equivalences at all. You seem to be insinuating that one living, breathing person in the US might not have the same rights to life as another person.

I think equal rights under the law are the business of all Americans. - There, I have answered your question.

Now you answer mine - Does a living, breathing child born in the US have the same rights as you do?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Waco47 says it's none of our business if this child born out of the womb lives or dies...it's a woman's personal decision.

---

How does prove your point? Is it any of your business? Do you want me or the government making decisions about your life?

---

Does a living born child not not have the same rights?

---

Is it any of your business what a woman does with her health decisions? Shall I make decisions for you?

---

I'm not asking about the woman, I'm asking about a living, breathing child. Does it have the same rights as you?

---

And I'm asking "Is it any of your business?"

---

So it is none of our business who gets what rights in the US? Is that really your argument? If that is the case then you have wasted a lot of time on this board arguing for things that are none of your business.

Equal rights? None of your business.
In fact, with that argument anyone could killed and the rest of the population could just say, "Well, it's none of anyone else's business."

That's a really poor argument, don't you think?

---

No it's not a poor argument. Your applications are false equivalencies. Again is it any of your business ? You're afraid to answer because you know it not any of your business .

---

They are not false equivalences at all. You seem to be insinuating that one living, breathing person in the US might not have the same rights to life as another person.

I think equal rights under the law are the business of all Americans. - There, I have answered your question.

Now you answer mine - Does a living, breathing child born in the US have the same rights as you do?

---

You answered a question that I did not ask. Of course equal rights are the business of all Americans.
But is legal abortion by a woman any business of yours?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

You're conflating two things.

This law, for the 1,000,000th time, only allows late term abortion when the fetus is no longer viable, or the life of the mother is in danger.

---

That isn't what it says

---

The section on late term abortion, yes. That's what it says.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

5 minutes prior to these pictures, it would be legally fine for a non-doctor to murder these babies in New York. Disgusting.

---

Waco47 says it's none of our business if this child born out of the womb lives or dies...it's a woman's personal decision.

---

How does prove your point? Is it any of your business? Do you want me or the government making decisions about your life?

---

Does a living born child not not have the same rights?

---

Is it any of your business what a woman does with her health decisions? Shall I make decisions for you?

---

I'm not asking about the woman, I'm asking about a living, breathing child. Does it have the same rights as you?

---

And I'm asking "Is it any of your business?"

---

So it is none of our business who gets what rights in the US? Is that really your argument? If that is the case then you have wasted a lot of time on this board arguing for things that are none of your business.

Equal rights? None of your business.
In fact, with that argument anyone could killed and the rest of the population could just say, "Well, it's none of anyone else's business."

That's a really poor argument, don't you think?

---

No it's not a poor argument. Your applications are false equivalencies. Again is it any of your business ? You're afraid to answer because you know it not any of your business .

---

They are not false equivalences at all. You seem to be insinuating that one living, breathing person in the US might not have the same rights to life as another person.

I think equal rights under the law are the business of all Americans. - There, I have answered your question.

Now you answer mine - Does a living, breathing child born in the US have the same rights as you do?

---

You answered a question that I did not ask. Of course equal rights are the business of all Americans.
But is legal abortion by a woman any business of yours?

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If the law is just for non viable fetuses, why would you resuscitate it and then decide to let it live or die after that?

---

It isn't just for non-viable fetuses and you are talking about an interpretation made by the Virginia governor, not what the NY law says. I'm not saying I support the law or it's wording or what it allows for and doesn't allow for, but at least be factual with your argument. Misrepresenting what others have said isn't an effective argument technique.

---

Ok, please explain it to me then. A viable baby has been delivered, it is fully out of the woman's body. It is alive or has been resuscitated to be alive. Now the woman and/or physician get to decide whether it continues to live based on "severe abnormalities". What does that entail and who gets to determine that? How long do they have to make this decision and how does this baby's life end exactly? Sorry I want specifics but we are talking about a pretty gruesome decision.

---

Impossibe to answer unless you are in the birthing but then again it's none your business

---

A baby is delivered by a woman and it is none of our business if it lives or dies? Are you f***ing that stupid?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If the law is just for non viable fetuses, why would you resuscitate it and then decide to let it live or die after that?

---

It isn't just for non-viable fetuses and you are talking about an interpretation made by the Virginia governor, not what the NY law says. I'm not saying I support the law or it's wording or what it allows for and doesn't allow for, but at least be factual with your argument. Misrepresenting what others have said isn't an effective argument technique.

---

Ok, please explain it to me then. A viable baby has been delivered, it is fully out of the woman's body. It is alive or has been resuscitated to be alive. Now the woman and/or physician get to decide whether it continues to live based on "severe abnormalities". What does that entail and who gets to determine that? How long do they have to make this decision and how does this baby's life end exactly? Sorry I want specifics but we are talking about a pretty gruesome decision.

---

Impossibe to answer unless you are in the birthing but then again it's none your business

---

A baby is delivered by a woman and it is none of our business if it lives or dies? Are you f***ing that stupid?

---

you answered a question I did not ask. Is what a woman decides about her body any of your business?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

contrario said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If the law is just for non viable fetuses, why would you resuscitate it and then decide to let it live or die after that?

---

It isn't just for non-viable fetuses and you are talking about an interpretation made by the Virginia governor, not what the NY law says. I'm not saying I support the law or it's wording or what it allows for and doesn't allow for, but at least be factual with your argument. Misrepresenting what others have said isn't an effective argument technique.

---

Ok, please explain it to me then. A viable baby has been delivered, it is fully out of the woman's body. It is alive or has been resuscitated to be alive. Now the woman and/or physician get to decide whether it continues to live based on "severe abnormalities". What does that entail and who gets to determine that? How long do they have to make this decision and how does this baby's life end exactly? Sorry I want specifics but we are talking about a pretty gruesome decision.

---

Impossibe to answer unless you are in the birthing but then again it's none your business

---

A baby is delivered by a woman and it is none of our business if it lives or dies? Are you f***ing that stupid?

---

you answered a question I did not ask. Is what a woman decides about her body any of your business?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Again BBL
"
A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body. "

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

1939 Germany

Otto and Helga von Roon sitting at the kitchen table

Helga: Otto, it's horrible what they are doing to those Jews. We should do something.

Otto: Those jews are none of our concern. We don't own them.

Helga: The stench Otto! The stench from the ovens! It is so horrible.

Otto: Relax Helga. Tomorrow the wind will be out of the south and you want even know the Jews ever existed.

---

Godwin's law violation?

Also, false equivalency on aisle 9.

---

what an out of touch idiot you are proving to be. State governments are allowing financial situations and emotional well-being to be called "health" so that a living human can be killed. You refuse to speak out against it but will gladly speak out against my comparisons of legal, mass killings!

Her is why it is not a false equivalency: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

---

Can you have a conversation with someone with whom you disagree without calling them stupid?'

Is it physically possible?

---

90sBear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Again BBL
"
A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body. "

---

We aren't talking about the woman's body. We are talking about a living breathing baby that is no longer any part of the woman's body.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Silliness. Sophistry

---

So instead of responding to a valid point of a long history of democrats using terminology to excuse despicable practices, you just resort to ignoring it entirely? What a joke. I thought we were having an adult conversation here.

It must kill you to know that 100 years from now you and your kind will be framed similarly as slavery proponents who operated under the guise of property rights advocates.

---

Wrong. Standing for women's medical and health rights is not disguised as a property right. It is quite the opposite. To you women are baby makers and the property of government if they are pregnant. How is that yours or the governments business? Do want decisions made for you? How is it any business of yours?

---

Because it is terminating a human life. It is stopping a heart beat from beating. I'm not saying I'm against abortion in some circumstances, but the way it is used willy nilly, especially with the Virginia story that came out today, it's no longer a health decision, but rather, it is straight up murder. And just as the government has laws to prevent other forms of murder, the government has a right, and an obligation, to have laws to protect the weakest amongst us.

Your line of thinking was how slavery lasted for as long as it did. The argument was, what right does the government have to take away or regulate your property. Hundreds of thousands of men died fighting to keep their rights to property. This is the exact same line of thinking that you are currently applying. You are saying it isn't a human life, but rather a health choice just as slavery proponents said the slaves weren't human, but rather property and called it a property rights issue. Please explain to me how it is different.

---

Yes it terminates a potential life BUT is it any of the government's business.? It's a simple question. Is it any of business of the government what a woman's decision is about her body? Is it any of any business of the government what decisions you make about your, men?

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

---

Wait, you don't know that Democratic slave owners used property rights as a justification for slavery? Seriously? You really need to do some research.

---

He probably also doesn't know that Lincoln was a flaming liberal of his time that abused more civil rights of Americans than the Patriot Act since he shut down newspapers he thought were treasonous, suspended habeas corpus, and raised an army against his own countrymen seeking the natural right of self-determination. (Yes, I understand slavery was wrong.)

---

Woof. Weird that you would accuse LINCOLN of raising an army against his own people.

Who fired the first shots? Who seceded?

---

Those who seceded were seeking self determination same as our Founders. The first order of a nation (the new Confederacy as well) is to protect its borders and what's within them by force if necessary. Would you not fight to decide for yourself? BTW...babies in the womb deserve the same right.

---

Yeah. They were seeking self-determination. For slavery.

It's literally what the war was about. It was about slavery. It was about rich people who wanted to keep the right to OWN slaves.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

contrario said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

For abortion proponents, to be honest, when 44/100 black pregnancies end in abortion, and 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion, it is much more than a debate about "womens rights".

It is a debate about abortion being used as convenience birth control, which is wrong. You are killing a person.

If it were really about the health of the mother or rape/incest, 98% or more of abortions would cease to occur.

To make them rare hearts have to be changed. To change hearts, the message has to be received and understood, it is a person who is being terminated, not just cells. A person not allowed to be born.

---

There are no abortion proponents.

---

Right...and there were no slavery proponents either, just property rights proponents. And no racism proponents, just segregation proponents. The democrats have known how to promote despicable practices for a while now.

---

Wait.

Slavery does not equal "property rights"
Racism did not equal "segregation."

Really REALLY ****ty analogy.

---

Wait, you don't know that Democratic slave owners used property rights as a justification for slavery? Seriously? You really need to do some research.

---

No. I know that. And they were full of ***** Do you agree with them?

---

Absolutely. I think I've made that pretty clear. Just as I think the blanket statement that abortion if a women's health rights issue is bullsht. I'm not saying that in some instances that isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, but applying it to all abortions, as some pro-choicers have done, is a similar argument. Don't you agree.

---

No. I really don't. Owning a person is indefensible. It's bull**** legal arguments made in bad faith.

A woman should have some right to autonomy over her own body. You can believe that abortion is wrong and still believe that a person should have liberty over their body.

Those two concepts aren't completely mutually exclusive.

Arguing a person could be property is without defense.

---

Arguing a human life is a health decision by a woman in all circumstances is indefensible. It is morally equivalent to calling a human property. A woman is effectively saying the baby human inside her is her property and she should have the right to do with it whatever she wants. She is denying the rights we all believe in, in the name of her perceived rights. And just as slave owners made the argument the slaves weren't humans, but rather they were property, so it was ok to deny them basic human rights, some people are saying babies in the womb with a heart beat aren't human as a justification for denying them basic human rights.

And as a disclaimer again, I'm for abortion in some circumstances and within a certain time period, but in my mind it is irrational to deny human rights to babies at a certain point, just as denying human rights so slaves was irrational and despicable.

Do you believe an abortion is inappropriate under any circumstances?

---

No. I could see a scenario where an abortion is appropriate. There are many cases. A non-viable fetus, rape or incest, when the life of the mother is in jeopardy -and yes. I know at least one couple personally who has had to make that call. It's not a hypothetical.

Can you name ANY scenario where it is acceptable for one human being to own another?

I'll wait.

---